[Bigbang-dev] merging changes upstream

[Davide Beraldo]

roger


ill update you next week on the progress!


cheers


Davide


On 29/09/17 03:03, Nick Doty wrote:
> I've merged #285 today with changes from Niels and summer school folks. There seemed to be agreement to resolve the conflict in the merge by keeping the notebook that had previously been deleted, with the expectation that we will in any case need to have another set of changes to clean up and organize notebooks in the example directory.
>
> Indeed, we already have https://github.com/datactive/bigbang/issues/271 from last year with that work item described, currently assigned to Davide. I think now would be a great time to move forward with that.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick
>
>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 5:08 AM, Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I opened (a bit messy) PR. I had a hard time understanding how I could
>> cherry pick different commits to make it more structured. So if you
>> think I should re-do it, please share a link with me on some guidance :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org
>>
>> PGP fingerprint    2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>
>> On 08/23/2017 12:17 AM, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
>>> Nick, thanks so much for this.
>>> I promise to review #281 this week.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2017 6:24 PM, "Nick Doty" <npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu
>>> <mailto:npdoty at ischool.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    I think we should probably try to prioritize merging all our
>>>    personal changes back into datactive/bigbang. It seems like the
>>>    longer we delay, the more painful the merges will be and in the
>>>    meantime we're missing out on the improvements that other
>>>    individuals have made.
>>>
>>>    I see 3 open pull requests on the datactive/bigbang.
>>>
>>>    1. Seb, are you able to review my #281?
>>>
>>>    2. I provided some review comments on #273 which haven't been
>>>    updated yet, but I'm not using conda so I can't easily test that
>>>    setup process.
>>>
>>>    3. And #279 is an error-handling change which shouldn't be too hard
>>>    to review and integrate. Any volunteers on that one? Or I may be
>>>    able to review it as I've been doing some mail collection
>>>    error-handling work recently too.
>>>
>>>    4. Niels, could you open one or more PRs with your changes? I can
>>>    serve as reviewer.
>>>
>>>    I think a hackathon this year is a fine idea, but I think we should
>>>    do this merging work well before that as it's not generally the kind
>>>    of work that benefits from a hackathon environment and it could get
>>>    us in a more stable place which would benefit a hackathon's many
>>>    participants.
>>>
>>>    Thanks,
>>>    Nick